Saint Joan of Arc (Jeanne la Pucelle): Difference between revisions

Line 1,302:

During her imprisonment by Luxembourg, the Duke's wife befriended Joan, and used a promise of an inheritance as lever for the Duke not to ransom her to the English. When she died on September 18, Luxembourg commenced negotiations for her ransom to the English, who assumed control of her in late November of 1430. She was then taken to Rouen, where Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais, who oversaw her ransom to the English, organized the show trial. He fully expected to be made Archbishop of Rouen as a reward.

== Tried ==

It confounds the honest reader the betrayals, denials, and injustices that Joan suffered. It's tempting to recognize the interests and intrigues she provoked as normal reactions to the challenges to authority she presented on all sides, and including her parents.

This essay is not concerned with the particulars of the Trial at Rouen, except for Joan's clear demonstration in it of her divine mission. What I find more interesting is Joan's own confoundment at her situation. She knew which side she was on and which side they were on.

From a typological point of view, the situation is clear: Joan is a "type" of Christ, betrayed by a follower, abandoned by the rest (mostly<ref>It has been said that the dauntless and marvelous ''Le Hire'', Étienne de Vignolles, mounted a failed rescue operation, but this is unlikely, as it would have taken a huge military force to rescue Joan from her captivity at Rouen. Le Hire did, however, carry out raids near Rouen in March of 1431, during the Trial, which made the English nervous. See [https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/joanofarc-trial.asp Internet History Sourcebooks: Medieval Sourcebook] p. 389</ref>) ransomed by blood money, persecuted by local religious leaders using the authority of a foreign occupier, abandoned by her followers, tortured, suffered, and put to death by that foreign power.

The history depicts the typology explicitly. However, we can still ask, why'd she have to go through all this?

== The Trial ==

It is not the purpose of this work to work through the narrative of the Trial of Condemnation, which we have essentially reviewed in pieces leading up to here. We do see in the trial the extent to which the English and Burgundians went to justify the execution of Joan, and the utter hatred of her that the court at Rouen exercised, which demonstrates by the opposing virtue how monumental were Joan's accomplishments.

Having been ransomed by the English from her captor, the Duke of Luxembourg, Joan was handed not to a military court but to an ecclesiastical one. For the English, it'd be an easy solution to put her death, as they did other mystics such as the Shephard of Lorraine, who was dispatched by the English without process or ceremony. Additionally, while Joan could claim noble protection, having been knighted by Charles VII after Paris, but the English would not allow any niceties that might complicate her execution.<ref>Medieval codes of chivalry gave a certain but not unlimited degree of protection to a captured noble. But in Joan's case, the usual solution, ransom, had already taken place. France refused to ransom her, and the British did, so she was theirs to do what they pleased.</ref> Still, it was a tricky situation: this young woman had brought great defeats upon them and roused the sentiments of the loyal French. For those common French people who did support the English they were embracing traditional ties going back to the times of Normal rule of England, as well as from hatred of their French rivals, the Armagnacs. The Burgundian elites, nobility and ecclesiastic, however, were, if not enthusiastic for English rule, steadfast in its support, as it not only gave them power over their Armagnac rivals but it empowered them individually in their political economies. An English-ruled France would put them right at the top.

Given top-down support and the dangers of bottom-up resentment or even potential rebellion that Joan represented, to the English and the Burgundian elites, she simply had to die. Only it had to be justified, and no greater justification could be found in the 15th century than from the Church. To get there, it had to be carefully orchestrated with clear lines of authority. However, when Joan was captured by Burgundian forces under the Count of Luxembourg, she was ''de facto'' held by a Burgundian ally but ''de jure'' held by an independent entity. This was an important distinction because it took from English and the Duke of Burgundy direct jurisdiction over her. To overcome the problem, the location of her capture was invented to place her under the command of the Bishop of Beauvais, Pierre Cauchon.

>>here

To explain away the improbability in Joan's actions and words, the ecclesiastical court at Rouen developed a theory of "malice inherent in feminine nature."

== Saving France - or a Catholic France? ==

@@ Line 1,302: / Line 1,302: @@
 During her imprisonment by Luxembourg, the Duke's wife befriended Joan, and used a promise of an inheritance as lever for the Duke not to ransom her to the English. When she died on September 18, Luxembourg commenced negotiations for her ransom to the English, who assumed control of her in late November of 1430. She was then taken to Rouen, where Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais, who oversaw her ransom to the English, organized the show trial. He fully expected to be made Archbishop of Rouen as a reward.
+== Tried ==
+It confounds the honest reader the betrayals, denials, and injustices that Joan suffered. It's tempting to recognize the interests and intrigues she provoked as normal reactions to the challenges to authority she presented on all sides, and including her parents.
+This essay is not concerned with the particulars of the Trial at Rouen, except for Joan's clear demonstration in it of her divine mission. What I find more interesting is Joan's own confoundment at her situation. She knew which side she was on and which side they were on.
+From a typological point of view, the situation is clear: Joan is a "type" of Christ, betrayed by a follower, abandoned by the rest (mostly<ref>It has been said that the dauntless and marvelous ''Le Hire'', Étienne de Vignolles, mounted a failed rescue operation, but this is unlikely, as it would have taken a huge military force to rescue Joan from her captivity at Rouen. Le Hire did, however, carry out raids near Rouen in March of 1431, during the Trial, which made the English nervous. See [https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/joanofarc-trial.asp Internet History Sourcebooks: Medieval Sourcebook] p. 389</ref>) ransomed by blood money, persecuted by local religious leaders using the authority of a foreign occupier, abandoned by her followers, tortured, suffered, and put to death by that foreign power.
+The history depicts the typology explicitly. However, we can still ask, why'd she have to go through all this?
+== The Trial ==
+It is not the purpose of this work to work through the narrative of the Trial of Condemnation, which we have essentially reviewed in pieces leading up to here. We do see in the trial the extent to which the English and Burgundians went to justify the execution of Joan, and the utter hatred of her that the court at Rouen exercised, which demonstrates by the opposing virtue how monumental were Joan's accomplishments.
+Having been ransomed by the English from her captor, the Duke of Luxembourg, Joan was handed not to a military court but to an ecclesiastical one. For the English, it'd be an easy solution to put her death, as they did other mystics such as the Shephard of Lorraine, who was dispatched by the English without process or ceremony. Additionally, while Joan could claim noble protection, having been knighted by Charles VII after Paris, but the English would not allow any niceties that might complicate her execution.<ref>Medieval codes of chivalry gave a certain but not unlimited degree of protection to a captured noble. But in Joan's case, the usual solution, ransom, had already taken place. France refused to ransom her, and the British did, so she was theirs to do what they pleased.</ref> Still, it was a tricky situation: this young woman had brought great defeats upon them and roused the sentiments of the loyal French. For those common French people who did support the English they were embracing traditional ties going back to the times of Normal rule of England, as well as from hatred of their French rivals, the Armagnacs. The Burgundian elites, nobility and ecclesiastic, however, were, if not enthusiastic for English rule, steadfast in its support, as it not only gave them power over their Armagnac rivals but it empowered them individually in their political economies. An English-ruled France would put them right at the top.
+Given top-down support and the dangers of bottom-up resentment or even potential rebellion that Joan represented, to the English and the Burgundian elites, she simply had to die. Only it had to be justified, and no greater justification could be found in the 15th century than from the Church. To get there, it had to be carefully orchestrated with clear lines of authority. However, when Joan was captured by Burgundian forces under the Count of Luxembourg, she was ''de facto'' held by a Burgundian ally but ''de jure'' held by an independent entity. This was an important distinction because it took from English and the Duke of Burgundy direct jurisdiction over her. To overcome the problem, the location of her capture was invented to place her under the command of the Bishop of Beauvais, Pierre Cauchon.
+>>here
+To explain away the improbability in Joan's actions and words, the ecclesiastical court at Rouen developed a theory of "malice inherent in feminine nature."
 == Saving France - or a Catholic France? ==